Another day, another live blog. Join us to discuss the possible announcement of opinions this morning beginning at 9:30 a.m. EST.
At the Court
On Tuesday, the court released its opinion in The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, in which it unanimously affirmed the vacatur of a district court judgment due to lack of jurisdiction, and U.S. Postal Service v. Konan, in which a 5-4 court held that the USPS cannot be sued over intentionally misdelivered mail.
After the opinion announcements, the court heard argument in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, on whether district courts are authorized to extend the 30-day deadline for a defendant to move to remove a case to federal court.
Also on Tuesday, the court denied a request for a stay of execution from Melvin Trotter, who, hours later, was executed in Florida. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a statement respecting the denial of the application.
As noted above, the court has indicated that it may announce opinions this morning at 10 a.m. EST. We will be live blogging beginning at 9:30.
After the possible announcement of opinions, the court will hear argument in Pung v. Isabella County, on the constitutionality of tax foreclosure sales.
On Monday, the court will hear argument in United States v. Hemani, on whether a federal statute that prohibits gun possession by users of illegal drugs violates the Second Amendment. We will be live blogging that morning beginning at 9:30 a.m. EST.
Morning Reads
Trump’s global tariff takes effect at 10%, despite announcement of 15%
Steve Kopack and Garrett Haake, NBC News
Tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump after the Supreme Court released its tariffs ruling took effect on Tuesday, but the rate wasn’t as high as expected, according to NBC News. The “reworked global tariffs began Tuesday at a rate of 10%, even though [Trump] said over the weekend that they would start at 15%.” A White House official told NBC News that “the administration is working on raising [the rate] to 15% in a separate order that Trump will need to sign. The official did not have a timeline for when that would occur.” The new tariffs were imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which enables a president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days.
FedEx sues Trump administration for full tariff refunds after Supreme Court ruling on IEEPA
Bonny Chu, Fox Business
On Monday, FedEx filed a lawsuit against the federal government aimed at recovering all the money it paid under the tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down. “The lawsuit is one of the highest-profile moves by a major American company following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling Friday, which determined that the president did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose such tariffs,” according to Fox Business. FedEx is represented by Crowell & Moring, which also represents Costco and Revlon in their lawsuits over tariff refunds.
Awkward? What to expect from Trump-Supreme Court beef at State of the Union
Maureen Groppe, USA Today
Ahead of Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, USA Today put a spotlight on the debate over whether justices should attend the event, which predates recent drama between Trump and the justices who struck down his tariffs. In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts admitted that he finds the experience “troubling,” because the justices “sit there expressionless” while lawmakers around them are “cheering and hollering.” Fix the Court’s Gabe Roth told USA Today that it’s good for the justices to attend because “the State of the Union address is a rare opportunity for Americans to see the justices with their own eyes,” which he believes “is important for building trust in the institution.”
What the Roberts Court Is Actually Trying to Accomplish
Sarah Isgur, The Atlantic
In a column for The Atlantic, SCOTUSblog’s Sarah Isgur reflected on the broader message that the Supreme Court seems to be trying to send with its rulings on presidential power, including in the tariffs case. The Roberts court, according to Isgur, “is reining in the power of the presidency and making the president more politically accountable” even as it “put[s] the president more fully in charge of his branch of government.” The court’s goal, she concluded, “is not to help one political party. It is to shrink the presidency back to size and force [Congress] to figure out a lasting solution to our problems, one that everyone can live with.”
Tariffs were illegal. Now Trump wants to delay refunds.
Neal Katyal, The Washington Post
In a column for The Washington Post, Neal Katyal, who argued against Trump’s tariffs before the Supreme Court, contended that the Trump administration must offer tariff refunds because it said it would do so multiple times as challenges to the tariffs worked their way through the legal system. “[G]overnment lawyers assured judges that there would be no ‘harm’ in allowing tariff collection to continue during the appeal process because duties later invalidated could be refunded – with interest.” It is “wrong,” Katyal wrote, for the administration to now suggest “that refunds could take years.” He announced that he is “launching a task force composed of trade law experts and litigators to get these refunds back.”
On Site
Opinion Analysis
Court holds that U.S. Postal Service can’t be sued over intentionally misdelivered mail
A divided Supreme Court sided with the federal government on Tuesday in a dispute over mishandled mail. Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that a law protecting the U.S. Postal Service from lawsuits over lost or miscarried mail bars lawsuits over mail that was intentionally misdelivered. Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three Democratic appointees in dissent.
Contributor Corner
Standing in and after Bost
In his Controlling Opinions column, Richard Re revisited Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, in which the court held that candidates for office have automatic standing to challenge ballot-counting procedures, regardless of whether they will affect the election outcome. The decision holds implications “for the ever-changing, frequently amorphous law of standing,” Re wrote.
Contributor Corner
The sudden return of summary reversals
In his Nuts and Bolts column, Stephen Wermiel analyzed what he described as the “rebirth” of the summary reversal, in which the court corrects errors by lower courts in a case without full briefing and oral argument. The practice, Wermiel explained, “seemed to go dormant between 2021 and 2024. … But as of late, summary reversals are back.”
Podcasts
Advisory Opinions
What’s Next After Friday’s Tariff Decision?
Sarah Isgur and David French further explore the Supreme Court’s tariffs decision, examining Kagan’s consistency argument, debating the Major Questions Doctrine with Gorsuch’s concurrence, and analyzing Kavanaugh’s dissent on executive power in foreign affairs.
Supreme Court Justices and the State of the Union
Following Friday’s tariffs ruling and President Donald Trump’s harsh remarks about the justices in the majority, many court watchers (including our own Mark Walsh) speculated about which justices would attend Tuesday’s State of the Union address and what, if anything, the president would say about the Supreme Court.
As it turned out, Trump only briefly addressed Friday’s decision, calling it “unfortunate” and “disappointing” but adding that his administration will use alternative legal statutes to build a tariffs “solution that will be even stronger than before.”
For their part, the justices seemed to treat this year’s address as business as usual. Four current justices attended – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – the same four who attended Trump’s address to Congress last year.
Per what NPR described as “[i]ncomplete records” at the Supreme Court curator’s office, justices first attended the State of the Union in 1913, and started attending the event regularly beginning in the 1950s. Invitations are sent to each chamber (including usually to retired justices). By tradition, the justices are seated in one of the front rows of the chamber floor.
According to research by The Hill’s Zach Schonfeld, Roberts is the most consistent attendee at State of the Union addresses (and presidential addresses to joint sessions of Congress) among the current justices. He’s attended every year since he joined the court. Kagan is right behind Roberts, having missed only the COVID-restricted 2021 speech from Biden since 2011.
Justice Clarence Thomas went to President Barack Obama’s first address in 2009, but he has not attended since. Thomas once said that “[t]here’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV,” including “the catcalls, the whooping, hollering and under-the breath comments.”
Justice Samuel Alito has not attended a State of the Union since 2010 (more on that below).
As Thomas noted, the State of the Union can be a raucous affair, with lawmakers applauding and even shouting at various points. Meanwhile, the justices often sit in silence and rise only when they deem it appropriate, since the public may (and often do) draw conclusions from their reactions. (Last night, according to The New York Times, the justices in attendance rose to applaud members of the U.S. men’s hockey team, who made a cameo with their gold medals.)
Criticism of the Supreme Court – or at least its decisions – is nothing new. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Warren Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan (not an exhaustive list) did so in past State of the Unions.
More recently, in 2010, Obama criticized what he saw as the implications of its then-recent Citizens United decision. When the TV panned to where six members of the court were seated, Alito was seen shaking his head and appeared to mouth “not true.” The retort got “much of Washington talking,” as we wrote at the time. The court’s Public Information Office, when asked the next day, relayed that “The Justice has no comment.”
Roberts subsequently called Obama’s comment, which had been cheered by Democrats, “very troubling.” “To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally,” he said at the time, “I’m not sure why we’re there.”
Former Justice Antonin Scalia also opposed attending the State of the Union, saying the justices “sit there like bumps on a log” while members of Congress react. “It is a juvenile spectacle. And I resent being called upon to give it dignity,” he said.
SCOTUS Quote
MR. BURSCH: “All we’re asking you to do is to declare that the presumption applies, that it hasn’t been rebutted by the clearest command, and – and to reverse. I mean, it could be an opinion that’s 160 pages less than the tariffs opinion last week.”
JUSTICE ALITO: “Well, if – well –”
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE ALITO: “– that’s certainly a goal to aim for.”
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE ALITO: “I felt very left out in the tariffs case. Justice Sotomayor didn’t write and I didn’t write opinions. But, if the –”
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “Maybe we’ll have a chance here.”
The post SCOTUStoday for Wednesday, February 25 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.